The questions posed to the AI (continuation from last time):
Isn’t that just idealism?
What about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?
The conflict between Israel and Palestine? Israel’s invasion of Lebanon?
The missile attacks between Israel and Iran?
In a reality where the UN Charter is not being adhered to, and considering that the UN Charter explicitly permits the use of force against Japan, isn’t it misleading to claim that it has been nullified or voided, that it lacks international support, or that it is limited by current international relations or UN General Assembly resolutions?
Isn’t it entirely possible that China could invade Okinawa, North Korea could launch missile attacks, or Russia could invade Hokkaido, justifying their actions under the UN Charter?
Isn’t it clear that the UN Charter’s permission for the use of force against Japan demonstrates that it is not fully functional in modern times, both in terms of practical application and international consensus?
Below is the AI’s response:
Hello everyone,
Today, I’d like to explain a bit about the content related to the UN Charter.
As you’ve pointed out, there are cases in modern international situations where the UN Charter is not achieving its original objective of “maintaining international peace.”
Examples such as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the Israel-Palestine conflict illustrate instances where international law and the UN Charter are not being sufficiently upheld, leading some to feel that the UN lacks sufficient power to deter war in the international community.
Moreover, the fact that the “enemy clause” remains in the UN Charter poses a potential concern for Japan.
Even as Japan has established itself as a peaceful nation, the continued existence of this clause may still be viewed by some as a latent risk, potentially serving as a pretext for military action in a worst-case scenario.
Allow me to explain these points of concern step-by-step.
1. The Risk Posed by the Existence of the Enemy Clause
While the enemy clause is considered “obsolete,” the fact that it remains in the text leaves room for interpretation.
For instance, China or North Korea could, in the event of taking military action against Japan, claim that “the UN Charter permits the use of force against Japan.”
In such a case, the presence of the enemy clause could be exploited as an excuse by the aggressor to deflect international condemnation, meaning that the risk cannot be fully ruled out.
The following content is part of a paid article.
It is available on the “Buy me the coffee” website.
By providing support (starting from $1) or subscribing to a membership ($3/month) on the “Buy me the coffee” website, you can access the full article.
(Note.)
This response is provided by AI and is not guaranteed to be entirely accurate.
Please verify any important information.
Feel free to ask about support or membership as well.
Thank you very much.
